[Bobolink]

protophoton

Your making up new particles now?

[Bored chemist]

protophoton

Your making up new particles now?

He made that one up earlier. It's a particle that exists to cover for his lack of understanding of physics.

They must exist otherwise there is no mechanism for a photon to reach lightspeed.

It is interesting that tantalum is roughly half as dense again as lead.
That's really quite dense.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Your making up new particles now?

With the made up particle I can explain how an emitted photon reaches light speed in classical physical terms. Or how it appears to be generated at light speed.

Well, the implication of what you say is that gammas are the same as electrons.

Why does it imply that?

[jeffreyH]

Your making up new particles now?

With the made up particle I can explain how an emitted photon reaches light speed in classical physical terms. Or how it appears to be generated at light speed.

Well, the implication of what you say is that gammas are the same as electrons.

Why does it imply that?

Do you understand the fact that most of the knowledge we have about photons comes from observation? You can't actually observe an individual photon close up to see what it actually is so no one knows exactly what it is. Not even you.

Since you seem to have carried out zero experiments and made zero observations you have no idea what you are talking about. Since this is the case you need to start being a little more humble in your approach.

[Bored chemist]

Why does it imply that?

Because , if a positron hits an electron, they annihilate each other , and what's left is a pair of gamma ray photons.
Since you claim the "structure" is conserved, a photon and an electron must have the same structure.
That's obviously bollocks.

So we are forced to conclude that your suggested conservation is also bollocks.

With the made up particle I can explain how an emitted photon reaches light speed in classical physical terms. Or how it appears to be generated at light speed.

Maxwell explained that a hundred years and more ago. Without needing your imaginary particle.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Since you claim the "structure" is conserved, a photon and an electron must have the same structure.

I claim that the positron has anti-structure (totally picturable in my model), so positron-electron annihilation has a sum over structures that cancels. I don't know how to be modest about this.

Maxwell explained that a hundred years and more ago. Without needing your imaginary particle.

Maxwell states that a photon start out at light speed. But the particle it came from must have gone slower than light. So exactly what happens at the moment the particle emits a photon? Maxwell does not give a step by step explanation of this.

[Bored chemist]

Maxwell does not give a step by step explanation of this.

You somehow think that, in the century or so since he published his work, nobody noticed this omission, rather than, for example, thinking that there is an explanation, but you didn't understand it?

[Bored chemist]

I don't know how to be modest about this.

Good point. How does one show modesty about publicising ignorance.

[Bobolink]

I don't know how to be modest about this.

I suggest you remain ignorant and never learn any physics.  If you did learn even a little physics you would look back on these posts and be so embarrassed.

[Bored chemist]

(totally picturable in my model)

OK.
Draw us a picture.

[jeffreyH]

Since you claim the "structure" is conserved, a photon and an electron must have the same structure.

I claim that the positron has anti-structure (totally picturable in my model), so positron-electron annihilation has a sum over structures that cancels. I don't know how to be modest about this.

Maxwell explained that a hundred years and more ago. Without needing your imaginary particle.

Maxwell states that a photon start out at light speed. But the particle it came from must have gone slower than light. So exactly what happens at the moment the particle emits a photon? Maxwell does not give a step by step explanation of this.

I think the model you are looking for is an action figure. Let's call him photon man. I can imagine you with photon man in your hand pretending to fly him around the room. Wheeee! Maybe you should take a break for 5 minutes and have a nice cup of tea and some scones. I think the lockdown is giving you cabin fever.

[talanum1 (OP)]

You somehow think that, in the century or so since he published his work, nobody noticed this omission, rather than, for example, thinking that there is an explanation, but you didn't understand it?

I understand: accelerating electrons emits photons and they obey Maxwell's Equations, and photons always move at the speed of light. This is not enough of a explanation.

Draw us a picture.

Here is the attachment in PNG format.

If you did learn even a little physics you would look back on these posts and be so embarrassed.

I studied Maxwell's Equations until 3rd year university level. I am not embarrassed.

[Bored chemist]

Did it occur to you to come up with a picture that makes sense?

[BrunoA]

A photon of light does not accelerate to light speed. Rather, a photon is already traveling at light speed c when it is created. It's not like a photon jumps from a speed of zero to light speed instantaneously. Rather, a photon is always traveling at c, from the moment of its creation.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Did it occur to you to come up with a picture that makes sense?

I just tried to use the code that space understands, but there is an error in the figure.

Rather, a photon is already traveling at light speed c when it is created

What is the mechanism this happens by (following Maxwell's Equation is not enough of a mechanism: at the very least the emitting particle must interact with the Electromagnetic Field).

Rather, a photon is always traveling at c, from the moment of its creation

That's why I invented the protophoton that becomes a photon.

[Bored chemist]

just tried to use the code that space understands,

Did it occur to you to use words that make sense?

That's why I invented the protophoton that becomes a photon.

That also doesn't make sense.
Photons only exist at C. They don't need a "protophoton".
And, when your idea predicts something silly like a continuously increasing speed of light, it's time to ditch it.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Photons only exist at C. They don't need a "protophoton".

What is the mechanism for photon production then?

And, when your idea predicts something silly like a continuously increasing speed of light, it's time to ditch it.

It does not predict an increasing speed of light anymore, I changed it.

There is errors in the figure: for the electron the filled circle on T_2 must be deleted and two open circles must be added to S_4. For the positron the open circle on T_2 must be deleted and two filled circles must be added to S_4.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Since a photon has no inertia, one needs a constant force on it to keep it moving at the speed of light.

[Colin2B]

Since a photon has no inertia, one needs a constant force on it to keep it moving at the speed of light.

Rubbish

[talanum1 (OP)]

Rubbish

What is the mechanism for photon transmission then?